Language Comprehension and Production Charles Clifton, Jr. University of Massachusetts Antje S. Meyer Max Planck Institute, Nijmegen Lee H. Wurm Wayne State University and Rebecca Treiman Washington University in St. Louis Acknowledgments: Preparation of this chapter was supported by NIH Grant HD051610 to R.T. and NIH Grant HD18708 to C.C. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of NICHD or NIH. In A. F. Healy & R. W. Proctor (Eds.), Experimental psychology. Volume 4 in I. B. Weiner (Editor-in-Chief), Handbook of psychology (2 nd ed.). New York: Wiley. To appear in Alice F. Healy & Robert W. Proctor (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology (Second Edition). Vol. 4: Experimental Psychology). New York: Wiley.
69
Embed
Language Comprehension and Productioncomprehension. Much research on sentence comprehension and production examines the role of syntactic structure (roughly, how a sentence can be
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Language Comprehension and Production
Charles Clifton, Jr.
University of Massachusetts
Antje S. Meyer
Max Planck Institute, Nijmegen
Lee H. Wurm
Wayne State University
and
Rebecca Treiman
Washington University in St. Louis
Acknowledgments: Preparation of this chapter was supported by NIH Grant HD051610 to R.T.
and NIH Grant HD18708 to C.C. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do
not necessarily represent the official views of NICHD or NIH.
In A. F. Healy & R. W. Proctor (Eds.), Experimental psychology. Volume 4 in I. B. Weiner (Editor-in-Chief), Handbook of psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
To appear in Alice F. Healy & Robert W. Proctor (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of
psychology (Second Edition). Vol. 4: Experimental Psychology). New York: Wiley.
2
Abstract
To produce and comprehend words and sentences, people use their knowledge of
language structure, their knowledge of the situation they are in, including the previous discourse
and the local situation, and their cognitive abilities, including memory, attention, and motor
control. In this chapter, we explore how competent adult language users bring such knowledge
and abilities to bear on the tasks of comprehending spoken and written language and producing
spoken language. We emphasize experimental data collected using the tools of cognitive
psychology, touching only briefly on language development, disordered language, and the neural
basis of language. We also review some of the major theoretical controversies that have occupied
the field of psycholinguistics, including the role that linguistic analyses of language structure
should play and the debate between modular and interactive views. We also present some of the
theoretical positions that have proven successful in guiding our understanding of language
processing. We conclude by discussing the need to integrate studies of language comprehension
and language production and pointing to emerging research topics.
Key words: psycholinguistics, auditory word recognition, reading, lexical access, sentence
comprehension, word production, sentence production
3
Introduction
In this chapter, we survey the processes of recognizing and producing words and of
understanding and creating sentences. Theory and research on these topics have been shaped by
debates about how various sources of information are integrated in these processes, and about
the role of language structure, as analyzed in the discipline of linguistics.
Consider first the role of language structure. Some of the research we discuss explores
the roles that prosody (the melody, rhythm, and stress pattern of spoken language) and the
phonological or sound structure of syllables play in the production of speech and the
comprehension of written and spoken words. Other research is based on linguistic analyses of
how some words are composed of more than a single morpheme (roughly, a minimal unit of
meaning), and asks how the morphological makeup of words affects their production and
comprehension. Much research on sentence comprehension and production examines the role of
syntactic structure (roughly, how a sentence can be analyzed into parts and the relations among
these parts). As we hope to make clear, interest in linguistic rules and principles remains strong.
However, theorists are exploring the possibility that some or all of our knowledge of our
language is more continuous, less all-or-none, than traditional linguistic analyses propose, as
well as the possibility that our experience of the probabilistic patterns of our language affects
comprehension and production.
While there is broad agreement that a wide range of linguistic and non-linguistic
information is used in comprehending and producing language, there is debate about how
different information sources are coordinated. Early psycholinguists tended to see language as
an autonomous system, insulated from other cognitive systems (see J. A. Fodor, 1983). This
modular view was motivated in part by Chomsky’s work in linguistics and by his claim that the
4
special properties of language require special mechanisms to handle it (e.g., Chomsky, 1959). It
holds that the initial stages of word and sentence comprehension are not influenced by higher
levels of knowledge. Instead, information about context and about real-world constraints comes
into play only after the language module has done its work. This gives most modular models a
serial quality, although such models can also resemble cascade models, in which information
flows more or less continuously from one module to another as soon as it is partially processed.
Parallel models contrast with modular and many cascaded ones in that knowledge about
language structure, linguistic context, and the world are processed all at the same time in the
comprehension of words and sentences. Most commonly, a parallel view is also interactive
rather than modular, claiming that different sources of information influence each other in
arriving at an interpretation of language. This influence can happen in different ways. For
example, different sources of information may compete with each other in arriving at a decision,
or decisions made at one level of analysis (e.g., the word) may affect decisions at other levels
(e.g., the letter or phoneme), via what is termed feedback. Views about production can also be
either serial or parallel, or modular or interactive, but the direction of the main flow of
information is opposite to that in comprehension: Speakers usually start with at least a rough
idea of what they are going to say, and then generate syntactic structures and retrieve words and
their elements.
In this chapter, we describe current views of fluent language users’ comprehension of
spoken and written language and their production of spoken language. We review what we
consider to be the most important findings and theories in psycholinguistics, returning again and
again to the questions of modularity and the importance of linguistic knowledge. Although we
acknowledge the importance of social factors in language use, our focus is on core processes
5
such as parsing and word retrieval that are not necessarily affected by such factors. We do not
have space to say much about the important fields of developmental psycholinguistics, which
deals with the acquisition of language by children, or applied psycholinguistics, which
encompasses such topics as language disorders and language teaching. Although we recognize
that there is burgeoning interest in the measurement of brain activity during language
processing and how language is represented in the brain, space permits only occasional pointers
to work in neuropsychology and the cognitive neuroscience of language. For treatment of these
topics, and others, the interested reader could begin with two recent handbooks of
psycholinguistics (Gaskell, 2007; Traxler & Gernsbacher, 2006) and a handbook of cognitive
neuroscience (Gazzaniga, 2004).
Language Comprehension
Spoken word recognition
The perception of spoken words should be extremely difficult. Speech is distributed in
time, a fleeting signal that has few reliable cues to the boundaries between segments and words.
Moreover, certain phonemes are omitted in conversational speech, others change their
pronunciations depending on the surrounding sounds (e.g., the /n/ in lean may be pronounced as
[m] in lean bacon), and the pronunciations of many words differ depending on speaking rate and
formality (e.g., going to can become gonna). Despite these potential problems, people seem to
perceive speech with little effort in most situations. How this happens is only partly understood.
Listeners attempt to map the acoustic signal onto representations of words they know (the
mental lexicon) beginning almost as soon as the signal starts to arrive. The cohort model, first
proposed by Marslen-Wilson and Welsh (1978), spells out one possible mechanism. The first
few phonemes of a spoken word activate a set or cohort of word candidates that are consistent
6
with that input. These candidates compete with one another. As more acoustic input is analyzed,
candidates that are inconsistent with the input drop from the set. This process continues until
only one word candidate matches the input. If no single candidate clearly matches, the best
fitting candidate is chosen. Each candidate in the cohort has a frequency associated with it, and
these frequencies affect the time course of word recognition (Kemps, Wurm, Ernestus,
Schreuder, & Baayen, 2005).
A key part of the original cohort model was the idea of a uniqueness point, the point at
which only one word remained consistent with the input. However, many words in English are
so short that they do not have uniqueness points (Luce, 1986), and for a time the uniqueness
point construct fell from favor. However, there is strong evidence of uniqueness point effects in
words that are long enough to have them. Studies have shown that versions of the uniqueness
point that take linguistic structure into account predict the time that listeners take to recognize
Contemporary models of word production share the assumption that words are planned in
28
several steps. Each step generates a specific type of representation, and information is
transmitted between representations via the spreading of activation. To facilitate the exposition,
we first outline the model proposed by Levelt, Roelofs, and Meyer (1999). We then discuss
which aspects of this model are controversial and which are assumed in other models as well,
describing some of the empirical work done to address the points of controversy.
The first step in planning a word is determining which notion to express. This involves
not only deciding which object, person, or event to refer to, but also how. For instance, a speaker
can say the baby, my brother, Tommy, or simply he to refer to a small person in a highchair. In
making such a choice, the speaker may consider a variety of things, including, for instance,
whether and how the person has been referred to before and whether the listener is likely to
know his proper name.
The next step in single word production is to select a lexical unit that corresponds to the
chosen concept. In the model we are discussing, the speaker first selects a lemma and then
generates the corresponding phonological form. Lemmas are grammatical units that specify the
syntactic class of the words and, where necessary, additional syntactic information, such as
whether a verb is intransitive (e.g., sleep) or transitive (e.g., eat). Lemma selection is a
competitive process. Several lemmas may be activated at the same time, for instance when a
speaker has not yet decided which concept (e.g., lamb or sheep) to express. A lemma is selected
as soon as its activation level exceeds the summed activation of all competitors. A checking
mechanism ascertains that the selected lemma indeed maps onto the intended concept.1
The following step is the generation of the form of the word. Intuitive evidence for the
1 The notion of lemmas appears to be more popular in theories of speech production than in in theories of speech comprehension. Of course, the information taken to be encoded in lemmas in theories of production must be accessed in comprehension as well. Thus, the process of lemma selection in production corresponds roughly to the processes of lexical access discussed in the sections on word recognition.
29
lemma/word-form distinction comes from the existence of tip-of-the-tongue states in which
speakers have a strong feeling of knowing a word and can retrieve part of the information
pertaining to it, for example its grammatical gender, but cannot retrieve its complete
phonological form (e.g., Brown & McNeill, 1966; Vigliocco, Antonini, & Garrett, 1997). Such
partial retrieval of lexical information demonstrates that the lemma and form of a word are
retrieved in separate steps.
Word form encoding encompasses several processes. The first is the retrieval of one or
more morphemes. As discussed above, many words (e.g., baby, tree) only include a single
morpheme, whereas others (e.g., grandson or walked) include two or more morphemes. In the
model proposed by Levelt and colleagues (1999), speakers build the morphological
representations by retrieving and combining the constituent morphemes. Evidence for this view
comes, for instance, from speech errors such as imagine getting your model renosed, where word
stems exchange while affixes remain in place (Fromkin, 1971).
The next processing step is the generation of the phonological form of the word. Word
forms are not retrieved as units, but are built up out of phonological segments (and perhaps
groups of segments, such as /st/). This is shown by the occurrence of sound errors, where
segments are transposed (e.g., plack ben instead of black pen), added (my blue blag instead of
my blue bag) or deleted (nice tie instead of nice try; see Fromkin, 1971; see also Garrett, 1975).
In the model under discussion here, the segments of a word are retrieved in parallel. The string of
segments is subsequently divided into syllables and is assigned stress. This is a sequential
process, proceeding from the beginning to the end of the word (e.g., Meyer, 1990, 1991; Roelofs,
1993). For words that deviate from the stress rules of the language, the stress pattern is stored in
the lexicon.
30
The phonological representation of a word consists of discrete, non-overlapping
segments, which define static positions of the vocal tract or states of the acoustic signal to be
attained. The definitions of the segments are independent of the contexts in which they appear.
However, speech movements overlap in time, and they are continuous and context-dependent.
Hence, a final planning step, phonetic encoding, is needed, during which the articulatory gestures
are specified. This may involve the retrieval of syllable-sized routines for frequent syllables (e.g.,
Costa, & Caramazza, 2006). However, since words must be eventually produced in sequence, a
procedure is needed that selects activated lexical units in the appropriate order. A common
assumption is that this linearization occurs when words are associated, sequentially, to the slots
in the positional representation (e.g., Dell, Burger, & Svec, 1997). Thus, although several
concepts and words may be activated at the same time during the planning process, the actual
selection of the words as part of the utterance is a sequential process.
Speakers monitor their output as they talk, allowing them to detect and correct at least
some of their speech errors. Theories of speech monitoring (for reviews see Hartsuiker & Kolk,
2001; Nooteboom & Quené, 2008; Postma, 2000) assume that speakers monitor not only their
overt speech but also their speech plan. Strong evidence for this assumption comes from
analyses of the time course of self repairs, such as I am so- eh happy to see you. Often, the
interval between the end of the incorrect utterance and the repair is so short that the speaker
cannot have detected the error in the overt utterance, but must have spotted an error in the
speech plan. The Levelt et al. (1999) model assumes that speakers monitor their speech plans at
two levels, the message level and the level of phonological or phonetic representations, but not
at intermediate levels (see also Slevc & V. Ferreira, 2006; but see Hartsuiker, Pickering, & de
44
Jong, 2005). Monitoring at the phonological level is taken to involve the speech input system,
which processes self-generated phonological representations in the same way as input from
other speakers. These monitoring processing are effortful and relatively deliberate. In addition,
there may be faster and more automatic checking processes which are intrinsic to the speech
planning system. These processes might, for instance, be sensitive to novel or unexpected
patterns of activation of lexical or sublexical units (e.g., MacKay, 1987; for further discussion
see Nozari & Dell, 2009; Postma, 2000).
Conclusions
We have talked about language comprehension and language production in separate
sections of this chapter. This is because reading, listening to spoken language, and speaking are
experienced as different activities and because most psycholinguistic studies have concerned
only one of these linguistic activities.
Nonetheless, speaking, listening and reading must be intimately related. It is highly
likely that shared or overlapping knowledge is used in the production and comprehension of
language. Thus, people probably access the same concepts when they hear and read words and
when they produce words; they probably have only one store of syntactic knowledge; and large
parts of the mental lexicon are likely to be shared as well. If shared knowledge structures are
involved in different linguistic activities, the processes involved in accessing these structures
are probably similar too. For instance, it would be very surprising if morphologically complex
words were always decomposed into their components during comprehension but retrieved as
units in production, or that familiarity or simplicity of specific syntactic structures affected their
ease of comprehension but not their ease of production.
Production and comprehension of spoken language are also related by virtue of the fact
45
that people rarely engage in only one of these activities at time. As we have discussed, speakers
hear themselves when they talk and probably engage the speech comprehension system when
they monitor their own speech. Similarly, it has been proposed that comprehending language
engages the production system (Pickering & Garrod, 2007). Further, as Garrod and Pickering
(2004) emphasized, people engaged in discourse influence each other, so that words or
structures that one person says affect how the other person expresses his or her thoughts.
Future work, in addition exploring the ties between comprehension and production, will
need to build better bridges between studies of the processing of isolated words and studies of
sentence and text processing. For example, theories of word recognition have focused on how
readers and listeners access phonological and morphological information. They have paid little
attention to how people access the syntactic information that is necessary for sentence
processing and comprehension. Further work is needed, too, on the similarities and differences
between the processing of written language and the processing of spoken language. Given the
importance of prosody in spoken language comprehension, for example, we need to know more
about its possible role in reading.
We have identified some key themes in all the areas we have discussed. One theme is
the balance between computation and storage. Clearly, a good deal of information must be
stored as such, including the forms of irregular verbs such as went. But are forms that could in
principle be derived by rule (e.g., the regular past tense form walked) computed each time they
are heard or said, are they stored as ready-made units, or are both procedures available?
A second theme, supposing that some rule-based computation takes place, involves the
nature of the rules that guide computation. Are they hard-and-fast rules, like traditional
linguistic rules, or are they more like probabilistic constraints? People seem to be very good at
46
picking up statistical regularities in the language they are exposed to (Saffran, 2003). However,
many linguistic patterns seem to be all-or-none (for example, nouns and adjectives in French
always agree in gender). Our ability to follow such patterns, as well as our ability to make some
sense of sentences like Colorless green ideas sleep furiously, suggests that Chomsky’s notion of
language as an internalized system of rules still has an important place to play in views of
language processing.
A third theme is the debate between interactive and modular views. Various sources of
evidence speak against a strictly serial, unidirectional flow of information in language
processing, including observations suggesting that knowledge of a word may influence
perception of its component phonemes. However, there is noway of disconfirming a theory that
claims that a language user can potentially use all available information in any logically
possible way. The debate has proven valuable because it has led researchers to seek out and
understand new and interesting phenomena, but it will not be resolved until theorists provide
and test more constrained and explicit models, both interactive and modular.
A fourth theme, which we have only briefly mentioned but which we find in all the areas
covered, is how general cognitive processes such as memory and attention are involved in
language comprehension and production. Attention clearly plays a role in the recognition of
written and spoken words (e.g., Sanders & Neville, 2003), and memory has to play a role in
putting together the words in a sentence (e.g., Lewis & Vasishth, 2005). Understanding the
involvement of these processes in linguistic tasks is crucial for understanding how differences
in language use between persons and situations arise, and in what ways language is similar to
and different from other cognitive activities.
A fifth, and recently emerging, theme is the increasing interest in studying languages
47
other than English, including non-Indo-European languages (e.g., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky &
Schlesewsky, 2009). We hope that this trend will continue. This is important because, so far,
psycholinguists have rarely appreciated the full diversity of languages and the differences in
processing requirements for speakers of different languages. A great deal has been learned, but
even more remains to be learned.
References
Abney, S. (1989). A computational model of human parsing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 129-144.
Allopenna, P. D., Magnuson, J.S., & Tanenhaus, M.K. (1998).Tracking the time course
of spoken word recognition using eye movements: Evidence for continuous mapping models.Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 419-439.
Allum, P. H., & Wheeldon, L. R. (2007). Planning scope in spoken sentence production:
The role of grammatical units. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 33, 791-810.
Allum, P. H., & Wheeldon, L. (2009). Scope of Lexical Access in Spoken Sentence
Production: Implications for the Conceptual-Syntactic Interface. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 35, 1240-1255.
Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: restricting
the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247-264. Altmann, G., & Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence
processing. Cognition, 30, 191-238. Antón-Méndez, I., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2010). Morphophonological and conceptual
effects on Dutch subject-verb agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 728-748. Arnold, J. E. (2008). Reference production: Production-internal and addressee-oriented
processes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 495-527. Arnold, J. E., Eisenband, J. G., Brown-Schmidt, S., & Trueswell, J. C. (2000). The rapid
use of gender information: evidence of the time course of pronoun resolution from eyetracking. Cognition, 76, B13-B26.
Arnold, J. E., & Griffin, Z. M. (2007). The effect of additional characters on choice of
referring expression: Everyone counts. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 521-536.
48
Ashby, J., Treiman, R., Kessler, B. T., & Rayner, K. (2006). Vowel processing during silent reading: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 32, 416-424.
Baars, B. J., Motley, M. T., & MacKay, D. G. (1975). Output editing for lexical status in
artificially elicited slips of the tongue. Journal of Verbal Learning and Behavior, 14, 382-391. Badecker, W., & Kuminiak, F. (2007). Morphology, agreement and working memory
retrieval in sentence production: Evidence from gender and case in Slovak. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 65-85.
Bader, M. (1998). Prosodic influences on reading syntactically ambiguous sentences. In
J. D. Fodor & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 1-46). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Balling, L.W., & Baayen, R.H. (2008). Morphological effects in auditory word
recognition: Evidence from Danish. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(7-8), 1159-1190. Baron, J. (1973). Phonemic stage not necessary for reading.Quarterly Journal of
experimental Psychology, 25, 241-246. Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.),
Cognition and the development of language (pp. 279-352). New York: Wiley. Bien, H., Levelt, W. J. M., & Baayen, R. H. (2005). Frequency effects in compound
production. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(49), 17876-17881.
Bierwisch, M., & Schreuder, R. (1992). From concepts to lexical items. Cognition, 42(1-
3), 23-60. Binder, K., Duffy, S., & Rayner, K. (2001). The effects of thematic fit and discourse
context on syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 297-324. Bock, J. K. (1982). Toward a cognitive-psychology of syntax -information -processing
contributions to sentence formulation. Psychological Review, 89, 1-47. Bock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic persistance in language production Cognitive Psychology,
18, 355-387. Bock, K., & Eberhard, K. M. (1993). Meaning, sound and syntax in English number
agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 57-100. Bock, K., Eberhard, K. M., Cutting, J. C., Meyer, A. S., & Schriefers, H. (2001). Some
attractions of verb agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 43, 83-128.
49
Bock, K., Irwin, D. E., & Davidson, D. J. (2004). Putting first things first. In J. M. Henderson & F. Ferreira (Eds.), The interface of language, vision, and action (pp. 249-278). New York: Hove: Psychology Press.
Bock, K., Irwin, D. E., Davidson, D. J., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2003). Minding the clock.
Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 653-685. Bock, K. & Levelt, W. J. M. (1994). Language production: Grammatical encoding. In M.
A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 945-984). San Diego: CA: Academic press.
Bock, K., & Loebell, H. (1990). Framing sentences. Cognition, 35, 1-39. Bock, K., & Miller, C. A. (1991). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 45-93. Bock, J. K., & Warren, R. K. (1985). Conceptual accessibility and syntactic structure in
sentence formulation Cognition, 21, 47-67. Bonin, P., Malardier, N., Meot, A., & Fayol, M. (2006). The scope of advance planning
in written picture naming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 205-237. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2009). The role of prominence
information in the real-time comprehension of transitive constructions: A cross-linguistic approach. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3, 19-58.
Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M.J., McLean, J.F., & Stewart, A.J. (2006). The role of local
and global syntactic structure in languge production: Evidence from syntactic priming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21 (7-8), 974-1010.
Brennan, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 22, 1482-1493.
Britt, M. A. (1994). The interaction of referential ambiguity and argument structure in the
parsing of prepositional phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 251-283. Brown, R., & McNeill, D. (1966). The "tip of tongue" phenomenon. Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5, 325-337. Brown-Schmidt, S., & Tanenhaus, M. (2006). Watching the eyes when talking about size:
An investigation of message formulation and utterance planning. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 592-611.
Calhoun, S. (2010). How does informativeness affect prosodic prominence? Language
and Cognitive Processes, 25(7-9), 1099-1140.
50
Caramazza, A. (1997). How many levels of processing are there in lexical access? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14, 177-208.
Carlson, K. (2009). How prosody influences sentence comprehension. Language and
Linguistics Compass, 3, July. Carlson, K., Clifton, C., Jr., & Frazier, L. (2001). Prosodic boundaries in adjunct
attachment. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 58-81. Cattell, J. M. (1886). The time it takes to see and name objects. Mind, 11, 63-65. Chang, F., Dell, G. S., & Bock, K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review,
113, 234-272. Chang, F., Dell, G. S., Bock, K., & Griffin, Z. M. (2000). Structural priming as implicit
learning: A comparison of models of sentence production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 217-229.
Chen, J. Y., Chen, T. M., & Dell, G. S. (2002). Word-form encoding in mandarin
Chinese as assessed by the implicit priming task. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 751-781.
Cholin, J., Dell, G. S., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2011). Planning and articulation in
incremental word production: Syllable-frequency effects in English. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 37, 109-122.
Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of Verbal Behavior. Language, 35, 26-58. Clayards, M., Tanenhaus, M.K., Aslin, R.N., & Jacobs, R.A. (2008). Perception of
speech reflects optimal use of probabilistic speech cues. Cognition, 108, 804-809. Clark, H. H., & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and language: New York:Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich. Cleland, A. A., & Pickering, M. J. (2003). The use of lexical and syntactic information in
language production: Evidence from the priming of noun-phrase structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 214-230.
Cleland, A. A., & Pickering, M. J. (2006). Do writing and speaking employ the same
syntactic representations? Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 185-198. Clifton, C., Jr., Speer, S., & Abney, S. (1991). Parsing arguments: Phrase structure and
argument structure as determinants of initial parsing decisions. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 251-271.
Clifton, C. Jr., & Staub, A. (2008).Parallelism and competition in syntactic ambiguity
51
resolution.Language and Linguistics Compass, 2, 234-250. Corbett, G. G. (1979). Agreement hierarchy Journal of Linguistics, 15, 203-224. Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: A dual
route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review. 108, 204-258.
Cowan, N. (1984). On short and long auditory stores. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 341-
370. Crocker, M. (1995).Computational psycholinguistics: An interdisciplinary approach to
the study of language. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Cubelli, R., Lotto, L., Paolieri, D., Girelli, M., & Job, R. (2005). Grammatical gender is
selected in bare noun production: Evidence from the picture-word interference paradigm. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 42-59.
Cutler, A., Dahan, D., & van Donselaar, W. (1997). Prosody in the comprehension of
spoken language: A literature review. Language and Speech, 40, 141-201. Cutler, A. & Norris, D.G. (1979).Monitoring sentence comprehension. In W.E. Cooper &
Damian, M., & Stadthagen-Gonzalez, H. (2009). Advance planning of form properties in
the written production of single and multiple words. Language & Cognitive Processes, 24, 555-579
Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading activation theory of retrieval in sentence production -.
Psychological Review, 93, 283-321. Dell, G. S. (1988). The retrieval of phonological forms in production - tests of predictions
from a connectionist model Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 124-142. Dell, G. S., Burger, L. K., & Svec, W. R. (1997). Language production and serial order:
A functional analysis and a model. Psychological Review, 104, 123-147. Dell, G. S., & Gordon, J. K. (2003). Neighbors in the lexicon: Friends or foes? In N. O.
Schiller & A. S. Meyer (Eds.), Phonetics and phonology in language comprehension and production (pp. 9-37). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dell, G. S., & Reich, P. A. (1981). Stages in sentence production - an analysis of speech
error data Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 611-629. Dell, G. S., Schwartz, M. F., Martin, N., Saffran, E. M., & Gagnon, D. A. (1997). Lexical
52
access in aphasic and nonaphasic speakers. Psychological Review, 104, 801-838. Deutsch, A., & Dank, M. (2009). Conflicting cues and competition between notional and
grammatical factors in producing number and gender agreement: Evidence from Hebrew. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 112-143.
De Vincenzi, M. (1991). Syntactic parsing strategies in Italian. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers. Eberhard, K. M., Cutting, J. C., & Bock, K. (2005). Making syntax of sense: Number
agreement in sentence production. Psychological Review, 112, 531-559. Eberhard, K. M. (1999). The accessibility of conceptual number to the processes of
subject-verb agreement in English. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 560-578. Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willows, D. M., Schuster, B. V., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., &
Shanahan, T. (2001). Phoneme awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel's metaanalysis. Reading Research Quartely, 16, 250-287.
Engelhardt, P. E., Bailey, K. G. D., & Ferreira, F. (2006). Do speakers and listeners
observe the Gricean Maxim of Quantity? Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 554-573. Evans, N., & Levinson, S. C. (2009). The myth of language universals: Language
diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 429-448. Feldman, L.B., O'Connor, P., & Moscosodel Prado Martín, F. (2009). Early
morphological processing is morphosemantic and not simply morpho-orthographic: A violation of form-then-meaning accounts of word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 684-691.
Ferreira, F. (1993). Creation of prosody during sentence production Psychological
Review, 100, 233-253. Ferreira, F. (2007). Prosody and performance in language production. Language and
Cognitive Processes, 22, 1151-1177. Ferreira, F., & Swets, B. (2002). How incremental is language production? Evidence
from the production of utterances requiring the computation of arithmetic sums. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 57-84.
Ferreira, F., & Tanenhaus, M.K. (2007).Introduction to the special issue on language-
vision interactions.Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 455-459. Ferreira, V. S. (1996). Is it better to give than to donate? Syntactic flexibility in language
production. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 724-755.
53
Ferreira, V. S., & Dell, G. S. (2000). Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive Psychology, 40, 296-340.
Ferreira, V. S., Slevc, L. R., & Rogers, E. S. (2005). How do speakers avoid ambiguous
linguistic expressions? Cognition, 96, 263-284. Finkbeiner, M., & Caramazza, A. (2006). Now you see it, now you don’t: On turning
semantic interference into facilitation in a Stroop-like task. Cortex, 42, 790-796. Fletcher, J., Stirling, L., Mushin, I., & Wales, R. (2002). Intonational rises and dialog acts
in the Australian English map task. Language and Speech, 45, 229-253. Fodor, J. A. (1983). Modularity of mind: Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press. Fodor, J. D. (1978). Parsing strategies and constraints on transformations. Linguistic
Inquiry, 9, 427-474. Fodor J. D. (1998) Learning to parse? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 285–
319. Fodor, J. D., & Ferreira, F. (Eds.). (1998). Sentence reanalysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers. Ford, M., Bresnan, J., & Kaplan, R. (1982). A competence-based theory of syntactic
closure. In J. Bresnan (Ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations: Cambridge, Mass:The MIT Press, pp 727-796.
Forster, K. I. (1979). Levels of processing and the structure of the language processor. In
W. E. Cooper & E. C. T. Walker (Eds.), Sentence Processing (pp. 27-86). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Press.
Foucart, A., Branigan, H. P., & Bard, E. G. (2010). Determiner selection in Romance
languages: Evidence from French. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 1414-1421.
Foygel, D., & Dell, G. S. (2000). Models of impaired lexical access in speech production.
Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 182-216. Franck, J., Vigliocco, G., Antón-Méndez, I., Collina, S., & Frauenfelder, U. H. (2008).
The interplay of syntax and form in sentence production: A cross-linguistic study of form effects on agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 329-374.
Frazier, L. (1987a). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.),
Attention and performance (pp. 559-586). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Frazier, L. (1987b). Syntactic processing: Evidence from Dutch. Natural Language and
54
Linguistic Theory, 5, 519-559. Frazier, L. (1995). Constraint satisfaction as a theory of sentence processing. Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 437-468. Frazier, L., Carlson, K., & Clifton, C. (2006). Prosodic phrasing is central to language
comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 244-249. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence
comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178-210.
Fromkin, V. A. (1971). Non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances Language, 47,
27-52. Frost, R. (1998). Toward a strong phonological theory of visual word recognition: rue
issues and false trails. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 71 - 99. Fukumura, K., van Gompel, R. P. G., & Pickering, M. J. (2010). The use of visual
context during the production of referring expressions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(9), 1700-1715.
Garnham, A. (1999). Reference and anaphora. In S. Garrod & M. J. Pickering (Eds.),
Language processing (pp. 335-362). Hove, UK: Psychology Press. Garrett, M. F. (1975). The analysis of sentence production. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The
psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 9, pp. 133-177). New York: Academic Press. Garrod, S., & Pickering, M. (2004). Why is conversation so easy? Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 8, 8-11. Gaskell, M. G. (Ed.). (2007). The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. Gaskell, M.G., & Marslen-Wilson, W.D. (1997). Integrating form and meaning: A
distributed model of speech perception. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 613-656. Gazzaniga, M. (Ed.). (2004). The cognitive neurosciences (3 ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press. Gernsbacher, M. A. (Ed.). (1994). Handbook of psycholinguistics. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press. Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition,
55
68, 1-76. Gibson, E. (2000). The dependency-locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic
complexity. In Y. Miyashita, A. P. Marantz & W. O'Neill (Eds.), Image, Language, Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gibson, E., Schütze, C. T., & Salomon, A. (1996). The relationship between the
frequency and the processing complexity of linguistic structure. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 59-92.
Gleitman, L. R., January, D., Nappa, R., & Trueswell, J. C. (2007). On the give and take
between event apprehension and utterance formulation. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 544-
Glushko, R.J. (1979). The organization and activation of orthographic knowledge in
reading aloud. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 674-691.
Goldinger, S.D. (1998). Echoes of echoes?An episodic theory of lexical
access.Psychological Review, 105, 251-279. Goldrick, M., Folk, J. R., & Rapp, B. (2010). Mrs. Malaprop's neighborhood: Using word
errors to reveal neighborhood structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 113-134. Goldrick, M., & Rapp, B. (2007). Lexical and post-lexical phonological representations
in spoken production. Cognition, 102, 219-260. Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during
narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371-395. Graf, R., & Torrey, J. W. (1966). Perception of phrase structure in written language.
Paper presented at the American Psychological Association. Griffin, Z. M., & Bock, K. (2000). What the eyes say about speaking. Psychological
Science, 11, 274-279. Grosz, B. J., Joshi, A. K, & Weinstein, S. (1995). Centering - a framework of modeling
the local coherence of discourse Computational Linguistics, 21, 203-225. Gumnior, H., Bölte, J., & Zwitserlood, P. (2006). A chatterbox is a box: Morphology in
German word production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(7-8), 920-944. Hale, J. (2001). A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. Proceedings of
the NAACL, 2, 156-166. Halle, P.A., Segui, J., Frauenfelder, U., & Meunier, C. (1998). Processing of illegal
56
consonant clusters: A case of perceptual assimilation? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 592-608.
Hantsch, A., Jescheniak, J. D., & Schriefers, H. (2009). Distractor Modality Can Turn
Semantic Interference Into Semantic Facilitation in the Picture-Word Interference Task: Implications for Theories of Lexical Access in Speech Production. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 35, 1443-1453.
Harm, M. W., & Seidenberg, M., S. (2004). Computing the meanings of words in
reading: Coooperative division of labor between visual and phonological processes.Psychological Review, 111, 662-720.
Hartsuiker, R. J., & Kolk, H. H. J. (2001). Error monitoring in speech production: A
computational test of the perceptual loop theory. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 113-157. Hartsuiker, R. J., Pickering, M. J., & de Jong, N. H. (2005). Semantic and phonological
context effects in speech error repair. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 31, 921-932.
Hartsuiker, R. J., Schriefers, H. J., Bock, K., & Kikstra, G. M. (2003).
Morphophonological influences on the construction of subject-verb agreement. Memory & Cognition, 31, 1316-1326.
Haskell, T. R., & MacDonald, M. C. (2003). Conflicting cues and competition in subject-
verb agreement. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 760-778. Haskell, T. R., & MacDonald, M. C. (2005). Constituent structure and linear order in
language production: Evidence from subject-verb agreement. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 31, 891-904.
Haskell, T. R., Thornton, R., & MacDonald, M. C. (2010). Experience and grammatical
agreement: Statistical learning shapes number agreement production. Cognition, 114, 151-164. Henderson, J. M., & Ferreira, F. (Eds.). (2004). The interface of language, vision, and
action: Eye movements and the visual world. New York: Psychology Press. Hill, R. L., & Murray, W. S. (1998). Commas and spaces: The point of punctuation.
Paper presented at the Poster presented at the CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, March, 1998, New Brunswick, NJ.
Horton, W. S., & Gerrig, R. J. (2005). Conversational common ground and memory
processes in language production. Discourse Processes, 40, 1-35. Humphreys, G. W., Price, C. J., & Riddoch, M. J. (2000). On the naming of objects. In L.
Hyönä, J., Bertram, R., & Pollatsek, A. (2004). Are long compound words identified serially via their constituents? Evidence from an eye-movement-contingent display change study.Memory & Cognition, 32, 523-532.
Indefrey, P., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2004). The spatial and temporal signatures of word
production components. Cognition, 92(1-2), 101-144. Jandreau, S., &Bever, T. G. (1992). Phrase-spaced formats improve comprehension in
average readers. Journal of applied Psychology, 77, 143-146. Jescheniak, J. D., Schriefers, H., & Hantsch, A. (2003). Utterance format affects
phonological priming in the picture-word task: Implications for models of phonological encoding in speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 29, 441-454.
Johnson, R. L. (2009). The quiet clam is quite calm: Transposed-letter neighborhood
effects on eye movements during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 35, 943-969.
Jurafsky, D. (1996). A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and
disambiguation. Cognitive Science, 20, 137-194. Kemps, R., Wurm, L. H., Ernestus, M., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R.H. (2005). Prosodic
cues for morphological complexity: Comparatives and agent nouns in Dutch and English. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 43-73.
Kennison, S. M. (2001). Limitations on the use of verb information during sentence
comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 132-137. Kessler, B. T. (2009). Statistical learning of conditional orthographic
correspondences.Writing Systems Research, 1, 19-34. Kessler, B., & Treiman, R. (2001). Relationships between sounds and letters in English
monosyllables. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 592-617. Kintsch, W. (1974). The representation of meaning in memory and knowledge: New
York:Wiley. Kintsch, W. (1988). The use of knowledge in discourse processing. Psychological
Review, 95, 163-182. Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and
production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394. Kjelgaard, M. M., & Speer, S. R. (1999). Prosodic facilitation and interference in the
resolution of temporary syntactic closure ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 153-
58
194. Koester, D., & Schiller, N. O. (2008). Morphological priming in overt language
production: Electrophysiological evidence from Dutch. Neuroimage, 42, 1622-1630. Konieczny, L., Hemforth, B., Scheepers, C., & Strube, G. (1997). The role of lexical
heads in parsing: Evidence from German. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 307-348. Konopka, A. E., & Bock, K. (2009). Lexical or syntactic control of sentence formulation?
Structural generalizations from idiom production. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 68-101. Kraljic, T., & Brennan, S. E. (2005). Prosodic disambiguation of syntactic structure: For
the speaker or for the addressee? Cognitive Psychology, 50, 194-231. Kraljic, T., Samuel, A.G., & Brennan, S.E. (2008). First impressions and last resorts:
How listeners adjust to speaker variability. Psychological Science, 19, 332-338. Kuperman, V., Schreuder, R., Bertram, R., & Baayen, R.H. (2009).Reading
polymorphemic Dutch compounds: Toward a multiple route model of lexical processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 876-895.
Kureta, Y., Fushimi, T., & Tatsumi, I. F. (2006). The functional unit in phonological
encoding: Evidence for moraic representation in native Japanese speakers. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 32, 1102-1119.
Lau, E., Straud, C., Plesch, S., & Phillips, C. (2006).The role of structural prediction in
rapid syntactic analysis.Brain and Language, 98, 74-88. Levelt, W. J. M. (Ed.). (1989). Speaking. From intention to articulation. Cambridge: MIT
Press. Levelt, W. J. M. (1999). Models of word production. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3,
223-232. Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). Multiple perspectives on word
production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 61-75. Levelt, W. J. M., & Wheeldon, L. (1994). Do speakers have access to a mental syllabary?
Cognition, 50, 239-269. Levy, R. (2008).Expectation-based syntactic comprehension.Cognition, 106, 1126-1177. Levy, R., Bicknell, K., Slattery, T. J., & Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movement evidence that
readers maintain and act on uncertainty about past linguistic input. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 21086-21090.
59
Lewis, R. L., & Vasishth, S. (2005). An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29, 375-420.
Luce, P.A. (1986). A computational analysis of uniqueness points in auditory word
recognition. Perception & Psychophysics, 39, 155-158. MacDonald, M. C. (1994). Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution.
Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 157-201. MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of
syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676-703. MacDonald, M. C., & Seidenberg, M., S. (2006). Constraint satisfaction accounts of
lexical and sentence comprehension. In M. J. Traxler& M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (Second ed., pp. 581-611).London: Academic Press.
MacKay, D. G. (Ed.). (1987). The organization of perception and action: A theory for
language and other cognitive skills. New York: Springer-Verlag. Mahon, B. Z., & Caramazza, A. (2009). Why does lexical selection have to be so hard?
Comment on Abdel Rahman and Melinger's swinging lexical network proposal. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24, 735-748.
Mahon, B. Z., Costa, A., Peterson, R., Vargas, K. A., & Caramazza, A. (2007). Lexical
selection is not by competition: A reinterpretation of semantic interference and facilitation effects in the picture-word interference paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 33, 503-535.
Malpass, D., & Meyer, A. S. (2010). The Time Course of Name Retrieval During
Multiple-Object Naming: Evidence From Extrafoveal-on-Foveal Effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 36, 523-537.
Marslen-Wilson, W.D. (1987). Functional parallelism in spoken word-
recognition.Cognition, 25, 71-102. Marslen-Wilson, W., & Welsh, A. (1978).Processing interactions and lexical access
during word recognition in continuous speech.Cognitive Psychology, 10, 29-63. Martin, R. C., Crowther, J. E., Knight, M., Tamborello, F. P., & Yang, C. L. (2010).
Planning in sentence production: Evidence for the phrase as a default planning scope. Cognition, 116, 177-192.
Mattingly, I. G. (1972). Reading, the linguistic process, and linguistic awareness. In J. F.
Kavanagh & I. G. Mattingly (Eds.), Language by ear and by eye.Cambridge,MA: MIT Press. McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context
60
effects in letter perception:Part 1. An account of basic findings.Psychological Review, 88, 375-407.
McClelland, J.L., & Elman, J.L. (1986).The TRACE model of speech
perception.Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1-86. McDonald, J. L., Bock, K., & Kelly, M. H. (1993). Word and word-order - semantic,
phonological and metrical determinants of serial position Cognitive Psychology, 25, 188-230. McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1998). Memory-based language processing:
Psycholinguistic research in the 1990s. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 25-42. McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (2003). Meaning through syntax: Language comprehension
and the reduced relative clause construction. Psychological Review, 110, 490-525. McRae, K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Modeling the influence
of thematic fit (and other constraints) in on-line sentence comprehension.Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 283-312.
Meyer, A. S. (1990). The time course of phonological encoding in language production -
the encding of successive syllables of a word. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 524-545. Meyer, A. S. (1991). The time course of phonological encoding in language production -
phonological encoding inside a syllable Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 69-89. Miozzo, M., & Caramazza, A. (1997). Retrieval of lexical-syntactic features in tip-of-the-
tongue states. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 23, 1410-1423.
Miozzo, M., & Caramazza, A. (1999). The selection of determiners in noun phrase
production. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 25, 907-922. Mirkovic, J., MacDonald, M. C., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2005). Where does gender come
from? Evidence from a complex inflectional system. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 139-167.
Mitchell, D. C. (1994). Sentence parsing. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of
psycholinguistics (pp. 375-410). New York: Academic Press. Morsella, E., & Miozzo, M. (2002). Evidence for a cascade model of lexical access in
speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 28, 555-563.
Myers, J. L., & O'Brien, E. J. (1998). Accessing the discourse representation while
reading. Discourse Processes, 26, 131-157.
61
Nespor, M., & Vogel, I. (Eds.). (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. Nooteboom, S., & Quené, H. (2008). Self-monitoring and feedback: A new attempt to
find the main cause of lexical bias in phonological speech errors. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 837-861.
Norris, D. (1994). Shortlist: A connectionist model of continuous speech recognition.
Cognition, 52, 189-234. Norris, D. (2006). The Bayesian reader: Explaining word recognition as an optimal
Bayesian decision. Psychological Review, 113, 327-357. Norris, D., McQueen, J.M., & Cutler, A. (1995).Competition and segmentation in
spoken-word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1209-1228.
Norris, D., McQueen, J. M., & Cutler, A. (2000). Merging information in speech
recognition: Feedback is never necessary. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 299–370. Nozari, N., & Dell, G. S. (2009). More on lexical bias: How efficient can a "lexical
editor" be? Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 291-307. O'Brien, E., Cook, A. E., & Gueraud, S. (2010). Accessibility of outdated
information.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 36, 979-991.
O'Connor, R. E., & Forster, K. I. (1981).Critreion bias and search sequence bias in word
recognition. Memory & Cognition, 9, 78-92. Olive, T., Kellogg, R. T. , & Piolat, A. (2008). Verbal, visual, and spatial working
memory demands during text composition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 669-687.
O'Seaghdha, P. G., Chen, J. Y., & Chen, T. M. (2010). Proximate units in word production: Phonological encoding begins with syllables in Mandarin Chinese but with segments in English. Cognition, 115, 282-302.
Oppenheim, G. M., Dell, G. S., & Schwartz, M. F. (2010). The dark side of incremental
learning: A model of cumulative semantic interference during lexical access in speech production. Cognition, 114, 227-252.
Oppermann, F., Jescheniak, J. D., & Schriefers, H. (2008). Conceptual coherence affects
phonological activation of context objects during object naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 34, 587-601.
Paap, K. R., Newsome, S. L., McDonald, J. E., &Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1982). An
activation-verification model for letter and word recognition: The word superiority effect.
62
Psychological Review, 89, 573-594. Paolieri, D., Cubelli, R., Macizo, P., Bajo, T., Lotto, L., & Job, R. (2010). Grammatical
gender processing in Italian and Spanish bilinguals. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 1631-1645.
Papafragou, A., Hulbert, J., & Trueswell, J. (2008). Does language guide event
perception? Evidence from eye movements. Cognition, 108, 155-184. Pell, M. D. (2001). Influence of emotion and focus location of prosody in matched
statements and questions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109, 1668-1680. Perea, M., Rosa, E., & Gómez, C. (2005).The frequency effect for pseudowords in the
lexical decision task.Perception &Psychophysics, 67, 301-314. Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P. (1998). The representation of verbs: Evidence from
syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 633-651. Pickering, M. J. (1999). Sentence comprehension. In S. Garrod & M. J. Pickering (Eds.),
Language processing (pp. 123-153). Hove, UK: Psychology Press. Pickering, M. J., & Ferreira, V. S. (2008). Structural priming: A critical review.
Psychological Bulletin, 134, 427-459. Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 169-226. Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2007). Do people use language production to make
predictions during comprehension? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 105-110. Pickering, M. J., Traxler, M. J., & Crocker, M. W. (2000). Ambiguity resolution in
sentence processing: Evidence against frequency-based accounts. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 447-475.
Plaut, D. C., McClelland, J. L., Seidenberg, M. S., & Patterson, K. (1996). Understanding
normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological Review, 103, 56-115.
Pollatsek, A., Hyönä, J., & Bertram, R. (2000).The role of morphological constituents in
reading Finnish compound words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 820-833.
Pollatsek, A., Lesch, M., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1992). Phonological codes are
used in integrating information across saccades in word identification and reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 148-162.
63
Postma, A. (2000). Detection of errors during speech production: a review of speech monitoring models. Cognition, 77, 97-131.
Pouplier, M., & Goldstein, L. (2010). Intention in articulation: Articulatory timing in
alternating consonant sequences and its implications for models of speech production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 616-649.
Pritchett, B. L. (1992). Grammatical competence and parsing performance: University of
Chicago Press. Rahman, R. A., & Melinger, A. (2009). Semantic context effects in language production:
A swinging lexical network proposal and a review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24, 713-734.
Rapp, B., & Goldrick, M. (2000). Discreteness and interactivity in spoken word
production. Psychological Review, 107, 460-499. Rapp, B., & Goldrick, M. (2004). Feedback by any other name is still interactivity: A
reply to Roelofs (2004). Psychological Review, 111, 573-578. Rapp, B., & Goldrick, M. (2006). Speaking words: Contributions of cognitive
neuropsychological research. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 23, 39-73. Rastle, K., & Davis, M.H. (2008). Morphological decomposition based on the analysis of
orthography. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(7-8), 942-971. Rastle, K., Davis, M.H., & New, B. (2004). The broth in my brother's brothel: Morpho-
orthographic segmentation in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 1090-1098.
Rayner, K. (1975). The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading.Cognitive
Psychology, 7, 65-81. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of
research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372-422. Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1996). Reading unspaced text is not easy: Comments on the
implications of Epelboim et al.'s (1994) study for models of eye movement control in reading. Vision Research, 36, 461-470.
Reicher, G. M. (1969). Perceptual recognition as a function of meaningfulness of
stimulus material.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 275-280. Rizzella, M. L., & O'Brien, E. J. (1996). Accessing global causes during reading. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1208-1218.
64
Roelofs, A. (1992). A spreading activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking Cognition, 42(1-3), 107-142.
Roelofs, A. (1993). Testing a non-decompositional theory of lemma retrieval in speaking
- retrieval of verbs Cognition, 47, 59-87. Roelofs, A. (1997). The WEAVER model of word-form encoding in speech production.
Cognition, 64, 249-284. Roelofs, A. (1998). Rightward incrementality in encoding simple phrasal forms in speech
production: Verb-particle combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 24, 904-921.
Roelofs, A. (2004a). Comprehension-based versus production-internal feedback-in
planning spoken words: A rejoinder to Rapp and Goldrick (2004). Psychological Review, 111, 579-580.
Roelofs, A. (2004b). Error biases in spoken word planning and monitoring by aphasic
and nonaphasic speakers: Comment on Rapp and Goldrick (2000). Psychological Review, 111, 561-572.
Roelofs, A. (2004c). Seriality of phonological encoding in naming objects and reading
their names. Memory & Cognition, 32, 212-222. Roelofs, A. (2008). Dynamics of the attentional control of word retrieval: Analyses of
response time distributions. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General, 137, 303-323. Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1998). Metrical structure in planning the production of
spoken words. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 24, 922-939.
Ryan, J. (1969). Grouping and short-term memory: Different means and patterns of
grouping. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 21, 137-147. Saffran, J. R. (2003). Statistical language learning: Mechanisms and constraints. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 110-114. Salverda, A.P., Dahan, D., & McQueen, J.M. (2003).The role of prosodic boundaries in
the resolution of lexical embedding in speech comprehension. Cognition, 90, 51-89. Samuel, A.G. (1997). Lexical activation produces potent phonemic percepts. Cognitive
Psychology, 32, 97-127. Samuel, A.G., & Kraljic, T. (2009).Perceptual learning for speech.Attention, Perception,
& Psychophysics, 71, 1207-1218.
65
Sanders, L. D., & Neville, H. (2003). An ERP study of continuous speech processing I: Segmentation, semantics, and syntax in native speakers. Cognitive Brain Research, 15, 228-240.
Sanford, A. (1999). Word meaning and discourse processing: A tutorial review. In S.
Garrod & M. J. Pickering (Eds.), Language Processing (pp. 301-334). Hove,UK: Psychology Press.
Santesteban, M., Pickering, M. J., & McLean, J. F. (2010). Lexical and phonological
effects on syntactic processing: Evidence from syntactic priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 347-366.
Schafer, A. (1997). Prosodic parsing: The role of prosody in sentence comprehension.
Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. Schafer, A. J., Speer, S. R., & Warren, P. (2005). Prosodic influences on the production
and comprehension of syntactic ambiguity in a game-based conversation task. In J. C. Trueswell & M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Approaches to studying world-situated language use (pp. 209-226). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Schiller, N. O., Bles, M., & Jansma, B. M. (2003). Tracking the time course of
phonological encoding in speech production: an event-related brain potential study. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 819-831.
Schiller, N. O., & Caramazza, A. (2003). Grammatical feature selection in noun phrase
production: Evidence from German and Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 169-194. Schnur, T. T., Costa, A., & Caramazza, A. (2006). Planning at the phonological level
during sentence production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 35, 189-213. Schriefers, H., Jescheniak, J. D., & Hantsch, A. (2002). Determiner selection in noun
phrase production. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 28, 941-950.
Schriefers, H., Meyer, A. S., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1990). Expoloring the time course of
lexical access in language production - picture-word interference studies. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 86-102.
Schütze, C. T., & Gibson, E. (1999). Argumenthood and English prepositional phrase
attachment. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 409-431. Seidenberg, M., S. (1997). Language acquisition and use: Learning and applying
probabilistic constraints. Science, 275, 1599-1603. Seidenberg, M.S., & McClelland, J.L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of
word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 523-568.
66
Selkirk, E. (1984). Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., & Turk, A. E. (1996). A prosody tutorial for investigators of
auditory sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 193-247. Shatzman, K.B., & McQueen, J.M. (2006).The modulation of lexical competition by
segment duration.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 966-971. Slevc, L. R., & Ferreira, V. S. (2006). Halting in single word production: A test of the
perceptual loop theory of speech monitoring. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 515-540. Slobin, D. I. (1996). From "thought and language" to "thinking to speaking. In J. J.
Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70-96). Cambridge:: Cambridge University Press.
Slobin, D. I., & Aksu-Koç, A. (1982). Tense, aspect and modality in the use of the
Turkish evidential In P. J. Hopper (Ed.), Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics & pragmatics (Vol. 1, pp. 185-200). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Smith, M., & Wheeldon, L. (1999). High level processing scope in spoken sentence
production. Cognition, 73, 205-246. Snedeker, J., & Trueswell, J. (2003). Using prosody to avoid ambiguity: Effects of
speaker awareness and referential context. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 103-130. Speer, S. R., Crowder, R. G., & Thomas, L. M. (1993). Prosodic structure and sentence
recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 336-358. Spivey, M. J., Tanenhaus, M., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (2002). Eye movements
and spoken language comprehension: Effects of visual context on syntactic ambiguity resolution. Cognitive Psychology, 45, 447-481.
Staub, A., & Clifton, C. J. (2006). Syntactic prediction in language comprehension:
Evidence from either....or. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 32, 425-436.
Tabor, W., Galantucci, B., & Richardson, D. (2004). Effects of merely local syntactic
coherence on sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 355-370. Taft, M., & Forster, K.I. (1975). Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal
of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 638-647. Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T.
Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and semantic description (pp. 57-149). New York: Cambridge University Press.
67
Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995).
Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension.Science, 268, 1632-1634.
Tanenhaus, M. K., & Trueswell, J. C. (1995). Sentence comprehension. In J. Miller & P.
Eimas (Eds.), Handbook of perception and Cognition: Speech, Language, and Communication, Second Edition (Vol. 11, pp. 217-262). San Diego: Academic Press.
Thornton, R., & MacDonald, M. C. (2003). Plausibility and grammatical agreement.
Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 740-759. Traxler, M., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of Psycholinguistics
(Second ed.). London: Academic Press. Treiman, R., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (1983). Silent reading: Insights from second-generation
deaf readers. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 39-65. Treiman, R., Kessler, B. T., & Bick, S. (2003). Influence of consonantal context on the
pronunciation of vowels: A comparison of human readers and computational models. Cognition, 88, 49-78.
Treiman, R., Mullennix, J., Bijeljac-Babic, R., & Richmond-Welty, E.D. (1995). The
special role of rimes in the description, use, and acquisition of English orthography. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 107-136.
Trueswell, J. C. (1996). The role of lexical frequency in syntactic ambiguity resolution.
Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 566-585. van Turennout, M., Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. M. (1998). Brain activity during speaking:
From syntax to phonology in 40 milliseconds. Science, 280(5363), 572-574. Vigliocco, G., Antonini, T., & Garrett, M. F. (1997). Grammatical gender is on the tip of
Italian tongues. Psychological Science, 8, 314-317. Vigliocco, G., Butterworth, B., & Garrett, M. F. (1996). Subject-verb agreement in
Spanish and English: Differences in the role of conceptual constraints. Cognition, 61, 261-298. Vigliocco, G., Hartsuiker, R. J., Jarema, G., & Kolk, H. H. J. (1996). One or more labels
on the bottles? Notional concord in Dutch and French. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 407-442.
Vitevitch, M. S. (2002). The influence of phonological similarity neighborhoods on
speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 28, 735-747.
68
Vosse, T., & Kempen, G. (2000). Syntactic structure assembly in human parsing: A computational model based on competitive inhibition and lexicalist grammar. Cognition, 75, 105-143.
Wagner, M., & Watson, D. G. (2010). Experimental and theoretical advances in prosody:
A review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(7-9), 905-945. Warren, P. (1999). Prosody and language processing. In S. Garrod & M. J. Pickering
(Eds.), Language processing (pp. 155-188). Hove, UK: Psychology Press. Watson, D., & Gibson, E. (2004). The relationship between intonational phrasing and
syntactic structure in language production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19, 713-755. Wheeldon, L., & Lahiri, A. (1997). Prosodic units in speech production. Journal of
Memory and Language, 37, 356-381. Wheeldon, L. R., & Lahiri, A. (2002). The minimal unit of phonological encoding:
prosodic or lexical word. Cognition, 85, B31-B41. Wheeldon, L.R., Smith, M.C. & Apperly, (in press). Repeating words in sentences:
Effects of sentence structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.
Wheeler, D.D. (1970). Processes in word recognition.Cognitive Psychology, 1, 59-85. Winskel, H. Radach, R., & Luksaneeyanawin, S. (2009). Eye movements when reading
spaced and unspaced Thai and English: A comparison of Thai-English bilinguals and English monolinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 339-352.
Wong, A. W. K., & Chen, H. C. (2008). Processing segmental and prosodic information
in Cantonese word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 34, 1172-1190.
Wurm, L. H. (2000). Auditory processing of polymorphemic pseudowords. Journal of
Memory and Language, 42, 255-271. Wurm, L.H. (2007). Danger and usefulness: An alternative framework for understanding
rapid evaluation effects in perception? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 1218-1225. Wurm, L.H., Ernestus, M., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R.H. (2006). Dynamics of the
auditory comprehension of prefixed words: Cohort entropies and Conditional Root Uniqueness Points. The Mental Lexicon, 1, 125-146.
Wurm, L.H., & Seaman, S.R. (2008). Semantic effects in naming and perceptual
identification, but not in delayed naming: Implications for models and tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 381-398.